The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-12-14

the proper rule of construction is TO look 10
and consider the grants of power in the act
in connection with the limitations; for, il il
should be found that the power is granted TO
the commissioners to appropriate these
funds TO any Legitimate municipal purpose,
II would necessarily follow that they are not
embraced in the limitations But first let
the severest rule be applied and let us con-
strue these limitations without reference to
the grants of power. and determine whether
they cover these funds that are not now
needed for the original purposes 10 which
they were devoted. In order TO ascertain the
mind of the Legislature in stornly forhidding
the appropriation of funds collected for one
purpose 10 another, it is not only necessary
TO refer 10 the evils that were intended TO bc
rcmcdicd-which have Just been mentioned
but also TO fully and critically ascertain
the object and significance of the acts in
tended TO be prohibited and punished. Why
should il bo deemed 50 serious a matter for
the municipal authorities TO appropriate
money collected for one purpose 20 another
purpose? Peahaps the moral obliquity of q
conscious misappropriation of money would
he as great, II no one is injured thereby as IL
serious injury upon others were inflicted.
Human laws do not deal with mere motives
or abstract morals. Penal laws are de-
viscd 10 protect person, property and char
actcr from the effects of evil acts. Then,
what was the purpose of this law and why
was il enacted? Without controversy, it was
intended 10 protect and secure
THE BENEFICIARIEs OF TRUST FUNDS
that were placed under the control Of the
commissioners of the Taxing District. The
otlcnse committed hy them In misapplying
these funds would be breach Of trust, and
punishable under the general statute making
breach Of trust a felony.
The Legislature by the act, for example
levied tax for the benefit OF the policemen,
and ordained that in their contracts and
service for the Taxing District they were TO
look alone to this fund. The fund was
placed under the control of the commission
crs rs trust fund, 10 be paid Ia them alone
They were the objects Of the solicitudc and
protection Of the Legislature, and the ollonso
prescribed and 90 be punished was the d.
version Of the fund 90 their injury.
SO with the other funds collected from
taxes under the budget II must be remcm-
bcrcd that while, obviously, the miSappro-
priation of any of these trust funds 10 extra
municipal purposes would be- crime under
the general statute, yet the subject that h
now being dealt with is the use Of funds for
purposes strictly municipal. Then such
transportation could not affect the inter.
ests of the Taxing District or its inhabitants;
for, whether IL is used for one municipal
| purpose or another, IL and its inhabitants
obtain the full benefit of II. Hence, IL fol.
lows that In this regard, the law was not
| intended for the benefit or protection Of the
| Taxing District or its people, but solely for
the cestuis que trusts Of the trust funds,
| viz: the policemen, hrcmen aud 9th
ers for whose benefit the funds were
created and collected. To illustrate. n
owe A aud u each 1900 and
| lntrust my agent with 1900 10 pay A and
| he pays II 10 u, no mischief is done me, for
| that amount Of my indebtedness Is cxtin.
| guishcd, whether the payment i Ia one ~
/ the other. The injury is 20 A, especially II
/ lac is concluded by thc act Of the agent and
| by contract II required 10 look alone 10 The
| fund misapplicd. This statute raised M
| trust fund aud In express terms provided
| that parties who rendered services sr mad,
contracts for each department should look
alone 20 the fund thus raised for that year.
Il follows, therefore, from these considcra
| tions, that the sense and true meaning 81
| thcs, limitations are that they apply only n
long ~ the hencfcinrics under the trust r.
| quirc protection, aud that any rcsiduum nj
the trust funds, after fully satisfying thcs,
bcncfciarics, IL not embraced In the limita
/ tons at all, 20 FAR ~ an application 10 strict
/ ~ municipal purposes Is concerned.
The end aud object Of the law are then ful
/ filled, aud is reasons do not aud cannot ap.
! ply Ia the usc ~ funds that remain, after 10,
| bcnciiciarios are satisfied 10 purposes that
arr not cNtm municipal,
| The provision Of the Law, that said com.
missionCrs shall not issue any bonds, note
scrip ar other evidence Of indchicdncss. and
| shall In no event contract for work ur mate.
| rial or services in excess ut the amount al
/ tax levied Tor such work. material or services
I lur that year. and parties contracting with
! said commissioners for work. material ursury.
/ ices, shall look alone 10 the tax Tor that nur.
/ pu-r for that year. and no Subsequent TAX
| shall be- levied Ia meet the deficit, etc, en-.
| forces the views hcrcinbcforc announced.
/ The plain language and context evidently
/ show that The purpose II the clause was Ia
/ prevent contracts that would create debts.
/ aud that Il was not intended ihcrby to pro-.
| hibii the employment of lahorcrs and tho
purchase II materials when the cash is paid
/ down Tor such labor and materials
My conclusion. Therefore, l. Tint the pow.
en-, Of the commissioners over the funds now
/ IN question, that are not devoted to any
| specific purpose under the law aud In which
/ no person a. be- protected hereunder has an
interest are not within The limitations II
/ the statute.
Hut the question remains whether or not,
/ under the grants 0i power 10y the statute tu
| the Taxing District authorities, they are au-
ihorizcd 10 use these funds Tor any lcgiii.
mate municipal purpose.
The limitations 81 the act arc now out II
/ view, and Wc come tD consider The eject aud
SCOPE 90 riig rowEns GRANTED.
| w. upon fair construction u the law. Il Z.
| found that the power in question b. granted
/ a. the district commissioners, 10 will be- siill
more evident that the commissioner power
/ over these funds are not included in the
| limitations " the act Tho contest in this
ease " but q repetition u contests that have
/ been made over the constitution IT the
/ United States aud OF the States, and over
I charters and contracts since the beginning
Of the government, between strict and liberal
/ constructionisis-On party insisting ON a
| strict and literal construction, aud another
upon a lntitudinaran construction. IL will
/ be- found that here, ~ IN other contests both
/ extremes arr 10 be avoided and Just, rca.
| sonablc aud sensible construction adopted.
| The true rule Of construction established by
/ the authorities u thus stated by Judge Dil-
/ Ion. u Dil. Nun. Cor. Sec SgD
1T Il agcncrnl and undispuied provision u
/ law that municipal corporations possess and
can exercise the following powers aud M
Others; u) those granted IN expires words.
| l2) those necessarily or fairly implied In, OF
| incident 90. the powers expressly granted.
/ 80 those essential 10 the declared objects
and purposes ~ the corpOniion-nOt simply
/ convenient but indispen,ably."
To attempt 10 gropc through the macs Of
| judicial construction by the courts 81 the
| scyCgil States in order ~ evolve the true rule
| Of Interpretation In eases like this would be
/ prontlcts aud confusing II u sufficient 10
/ say that the rule above quoted from Judge
/ Dfllons work, Il sustained By the great
weight Of authority and sanctioned by the
supreme court Of the United States aud u
| the State Of Tennessee II will be noticed
| that Tbs docs not adopt either tho literal or
| latitudnlrian construction PowcfsinCidcnt
10 the powers expressly granted and powers
essential 10 the declared objects OF the cor.
pomtion ere considered aI embraced Ia the